I find our Constitution both unfair and poorly constructed compared to more modern documents. At the time of creation I think it was revolutionary and groundbreaking, but some of it is simply wrong. Nobody seems to have the foggiest clue what the second amendment means. Powers of war are confusing and nebulous at best. The powers of the executive are increasingly creeping into the legislative branch.

And coming full-circle to the original point of the thread, the whole notion of winner-take-all voting is, at some basic level, completely flawed. Proportional representation is more egalitarian, and most modern democracies use it. And don't even get me started on the electoral college.

It is in keeping with this modest distinction that the laws of the United States ought to be written to. The question remains, to what end will any given law contribute to the forming of "a more perfect union"?

In theory I agree, but if the US Constitution has delegated the states certain rights explicitly (or implicitly via the 10th amendment) then the laws of the United States may not be relevant, except as to whether they are constitutional or unconstitutional (referring the the US Constitutional as opposed to state constitutions).

The US Constitution guarantees the states a right to a Republic, and for the states to retain certain rights to themselves:Article IV, Section 4 Republican government "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government."Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it tothe States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

When I was younger, I thought that anything good was constitutional, and anything bad was unconstitutional. I later learned that is incorrect. There have been things in the constitution that were bad, or wrong, or needed improvement, and that is why the constitution has been amended. I also learned that the rule of law is more important than the whim of public opinion at any given time as to what is good or what is bad.

PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Beyonder wrote:

I find our Constitution both unfair and poorly constructed compared to more modern documents. At the time of creation I think it was revolutionary and groundbreaking, but some of it is simply wrong. Nobody seems to have the foggiest clue what the second amendment means. Powers of war are confusing and nebulous at best. The powers of the executive are increasingly creeping into the legislative branch.

If you selectively ignore it, then you have anarchy. The US Supreme Court has the responsibility of clarifying the constitution with regard to what it means.

Beyonder wrote:

And coming full-circle to the original point of the thread, the whole notion of winner-take-all voting is, at some basic level, completely flawed. Proportional representation is more egalitarian, and most modern democracies use it. And don't even get me started on the electoral college.

The US Constitution provides that for presidential elections that the State Legislatures decide who the electors are. If they choose to hold general elections (this was not always the case as it is now), it is up to them as to whether to use winner take all (electors) or not. Most states are winner take all, and a few are not. This is outside of the jurisdiction of the US Government or the Constitution since the responsibility for those decisions has been explicitly delegated to the states. Please contact your state legislature if you have a problem with the way your state does it.

You need to do a better job of reading other's posts. Beyonder was saything that the phrase "a more perfect union" implies that this union would be more perfect than some other hypothetical or actual union. Beyonder was suggesting that the union which the constitution was supposed be more perfect than was the union under the Articles of Confederation.

Quote:

If you selectively ignore it, then you have anarchy. The US Supreme Court has the responsibility of clarifying the constitution with regard to what it means.

That seems a bit extreme. You still have goverment, perhaps it is moving towards tyranny, or perhaps towards a more direct democracy, or perhaps in some other direction, depending on which parts you are ignoring, and how it all plays out. Anarchy seems like a big jump. Let's say that there was some sort of terrible attack or something and the goverment (both incoming and outgoing) decided to delay inaugeration for a week. I don't think I would call that anarchy.

Further, I will accept the democratically elected state legislatures for each state on whether they want those laws or not (assuming their laws pass the constitutional test, which some do and some others do not). The constitution delegates the responsibility (within constitutional limits) to conduct elections and to establish things like voter registration procedures, residency requirements, voter id, etc. So if some states don't want voter id laws, I am OK with that. For the same reason, if Vermont wants to grant the right to vote to felons while still serving their prison term behind bars, that it none of my business because I don't live in Vermont and the US constitution has provided Vermont the right to decide that for themselves.

As a resident (recently and currently) of two states that have voter ID laws, I find them offensive, and as mentioned, the fact that, at least in PA, the leadership of the party that passed them stated that one of the purposes of the law was to influence the outcome of the presidential election makes me think these laws are not designed to protect the integrity of the election, but to disenfrancise voters.

Quote:

When I was younger, I thought that anything good was constitutional, and anything bad was unconstitutional. I later learned that is incorrect.

Maybe that applies here as well.

Quote:

I also learned that the rule of law is more important than the whim of public opinion at any given time as to what is good or what is bad.

It is also the case that sometimes people pass laws that are wrong, and it is our duty to disagree with those laws through all legal means and attempt to change them, (I for one will not vote for anyone who supports voter ID), or if that does not work, sometimes through breaking the law.

Quote:

I am not personally interested in trying persuade those who disagree with voter id laws or to debate in this forum whether they are in the best interest of society. Obviously I believe that they are, and you don't.

I am not trying to persaude you, my experience with you on this board indicates you don't change your mind about anything (btw that is not a compliment.) I am curious as to why you think what you do, and so I'm asking for reasons. You don't give them. Rather responding again and again with the statement that the, everyone repeat after me, "Voter ID laws are Constitutional." (Nevermind that what is and is not constitutuional changes without the constitution changing, so any statement of that sort should be followed by "at this time".)

So if you wish to provide an arguement for why it is better for 1000 people to not get to vote, in order to prevent one false vote, go ahead. If not, you have not given me a reason why these laws are a good idea, and so please stop saying they are, at least here.

In case I didn't make it clear enough. Don't just tell me "such laws are constitutional, and states are free to pass any constitutional law they want." That does not constitute a reason to pass such a law. (For instance, states could ban corn.)

The same applies to the establishment of a state religion, whereby the majority could impose its will on the minority via an election

It does already, it might not be written down anywhere but it is a fact that in America right now it would be impossible to be an "out" Atheist and win an election, worse still a "Muslim" - that is an example of the Majority imposing its will on the Minority. Also add to that the fact that all American politicians, loads of TV presenters and even the greenback refer to "God" all of this points to the fact that the downtrodden minority are having this bullshit imposed on them by the majority.

Quote:

But it does. It's the point of a democracy : we as a group make a majority decision that the whole group has to follow. And it's true in your daily life : decisions are made by those elected, and whether or not you agree with those decisions, you have to follow them.I believe you're giving the definition of anarchy...

That also explains why there are no Athiest politicians in America, they simply cannot gain enough votes from the un-brainwashed people because the vast majority are brainwashed which basically suggests that m0002a's argument is worthless.

Quote:

In the US, you are correct that some decisions can be made by election that impose the will of the majority on the minority, however, those decisions cannot unreasonably infringe on Constitutional rights and liberties, as determined by the US Supreme Court.

Define "Unreasonably" to the people in the Supreme Court who use a majority voting system - thus are fallible.

Quote:

So when you say that the "point of a democracy : we as a group make a majority decision that the whole group has to follow" is basically true. But the US is more accurately a Republic, where the rights of individuals are protected by the US Constitution, regardless of the will of the majority. In a true democracy there are no Constitutional rights, the will of the majority prevails at all times.

You have already proven that the US Constitution is far from perfect by the simple fact that it needed to be changed to that non-white American citizens were allowed to vote, so the US constitution is by your own admission a bit shitty and fails to protect the "rights" of its citizens until it is updated.

Quote:

I have no obligation to show anything, and even a single instance of fraud is sufficient reason to protect the integrity of the voting system by requiring a photo id. It is almost impossible to prove fraud when there is no voter id

So you dismiss any evidence that says that voter fraud is such a minuscule problem its is well within the margins of error of the vote counters, but cannot give any evidence at all to the contrary - it must be true then, voter fraud is NOT a problem in America and cant possibly have contributed to the cases such as JFK that you have refereed to - you have admitted it.

Quote:

It is almost impossible to prove fraud when there is no voter id, and voter fraud (of any type) occurs most often when one party controls a particular district (and therefore the pole workers) and do things that no one ever finds out about.

What kind of idiot would let this happen... please tell me that government employees dont actually count the votes.

Quote:

I wonder how people get those jobs, because one must have a government issued photo id (along with other doc) on the first day at work to prove that one is either a citizen, or a non-citizen who has a valid work visa to work in the US.

They would be the ones that get paid cash and still end up paying more tax than Romney.

That also explains why there are no Athiest politicians in America, they simply cannot gain enough votes from the un-brainwashed people because the vast majority are brainwashed which basically suggests that m0002a's argument is worthless.

I am not trying to persaude you, my experience with you on this board indicates you don't change your mind about anything (btw that is not a compliment.) I am curious as to why you think what you do, and so I'm asking for reasons. You don't give them. Rather responding again and again with the statement that the, everyone repeat after me, "Voter ID laws are Constitutional." (Nevermind that what is and is not constitutuional changes without the constitution changing, so any statement of that sort should be followed by "at this time".)

So if you wish to provide an arguement for why it is better for 1000 people to not get to vote, in order to prevent one false vote, go ahead. If not, you have not given me a reason why these laws are a good idea, and so please stop saying they are, at least here.

In case I didn't make it clear enough. Don't just tell me "such laws are constitutional, and states are free to pass any constitutional law they want." That does not constitute a reason to pass such a law. (For instance, states could ban corn.)

I presume you mean change my mind about anything relating to the subjects discussed in the off-topic section. I have certainly changed my mind on these issues over the years of my life, but probably not during the discussion on this forum. That probably is because I have given these issues quite a lot of thought already, and not because I don't ever change my mind (which I certainly have over my life).

Regarding the reasons that support the ruling of the US Supreme Court, I would defer to their ruling in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). I am sure that the justices who wrote the majority opinion addressed the issues you raised better than I could (although maybe not to your satisfaction). Here is the ruling:http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf

Personally, I was a bit surprised when this whole issue came up, because my recollection is that I have always supplied my drivers license when I show up to vote, and did not even realize it was not previously necessary. It seems to me that one would have to have some id, or at least the original voter registration card with signature, and that someone would verify that one's signature matches that on the card.

It does already, it might not be written down anywhere but it is a fact that in America right now it would be impossible to be an "out" Atheist and win an election, worse still a "Muslim" - that is an example of the Majority imposing its will on the Minority. Also add to that the fact that all American politicians, loads of TV presenters and even the greenback refer to "God" all of this points to the fact that the downtrodden minority are having this bullshit imposed on them by the majority.

The US Constitution says that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the putting the words In God We Trust on money does not constitute a law respecting an establishment of religion, nor does it prohibit the free exercise thereof.

That is different than in Great Britain where the Church of England is the official religion of the country, and and the British monarch is the titular head of the Anglican church, and cannot be a Catholic. Other countries that have official state religions include Iceland, Denmark, Monaco, Greece, and others (and obviously most countries in the Middle East including Israel and the Islamic nations). Norway gave up its state church in 2012.

Regarding whether admitted atheists can be elected, that is up to the people, and the government does not tell people what criteria they must use to vote.

andyb wrote:

Define "Unreasonably" to the people in the Supreme Court who use a majority voting system - thus are fallible.

Yes, everyone is fallible, even you and I. Would you prefer robots rule on these matters?

andyb wrote:

You have already proven that the US Constitution is far from perfect by the simple fact that it needed to be changed to that non-white American citizens were allowed to vote, so the US constitution is by your own admission a bit shitty and fails to protect the "rights" of its citizens until it is updated.

It's not perfect, but it is pretty good IMO, and I believe most Americans want to keep it. Whether or not non-Americans want to keep it is of not much concern to me.

andyb wrote:

What kind of idiot would let this happen... please tell me that government employees dont actually count the votes.

Actually, the members of the local Republican and Democratic parties count the votes. Supposedly, they watch each other to make sure there is no fraud, but in heavily partisan districts fraud does happen because one party controls the process. This is what happened in Broward County FL in 2000 when the election board controlled by Democrats wanted to manually count only those precincts that were heavily Democratic (in the high-rise condos in Miami Beach), to the exclusion of other more balanced precincts, in order to discover more hanging chads and get more votes for Gore. The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Bush v Gore that a selective manual recount of only certain precincts or only certain counties would violate the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

Last edited by m0002a on Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ok, I guess I have nothing more to say to you on this matter, if you can't understand that the supreme court rules on constitutionality not "good idea"ness.

I do understand that. I think the court gave reasons in their opinion that are more comprehensive that I could give. The opinion is a bit too long to post here in its entirety, so I posted a link for those who want to look at it.

As I stated, I was quite surprised that a photo id (or at least a signed voter registration card) was not always required. I recall always being asked for some id when I vote, if nothing else to make sure there is no confusion between two people with similar names, and to make sure that a person doesn't vote twice or has not already voted early or by absentee.

American politicians' conspicuous displays of religiosity are a particularly buffoonish form of theater.

Some, though, are probably quite sincere. Interestingly, Obama comes across as one of the more sincere.

If there was some way to guarantee the truth, I would go all-in that Obama is an agnostic or atheist without any hesitation whatsoever. Sounds like an easy double-up. Whether he is or is not an agnostic or atheist (or whether any other politician is also) has absolutely no impact on my voting decisions. I personally don't see the connection between religion and public policy in the US.

You need to do a better job of reading other's posts. Beyonder was saything that the phrase "a more perfect union" implies that this union would be more perfect than some other hypothetical or actual union. Beyonder was suggesting that the union which the constitution was supposed be more perfect than was the union under the Articles of Confederation.

OK, that was not clear to me from reading his post. What is the penalty for that?

OK, that was not clear to me from reading his post. What is the penalty for that?

The penalty is that you appear foolish and people take what you have to say less seriously. As for instance when you miss the point that the Supreme Court doesn't rule on desirability but on constitutionality. For instance, from the wikipedia article on the case :

"It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgment must prevail unless it imposes a severe and unjustified overall burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class." -- Justice Scalia

He is saying it is possible the costs outway the benefits, or maybe they don't. He'll let state legislatures decide, he seems to understand that it is not his job to decide if the laws are "good" just if they are constitutional. I think the state legislatures have decided incorrectly. I don't really have the patience to read a 65 page supreme court opinion. I don't think I would be so firm on something if I couldn't explain my reasons for it.

I am sure there are a lot of atheists or at least agnostics in government, regardless of whether they admit it. I don't think it matters what a persons opinions are on that issue.

You missed the point by a mile.

Let me repeat it.

You said.

Quote:

The same applies to the establishment of a state religion, whereby the majority could impose its will on the minority via an election

I said.

Quote:

It does already, it might not be written down anywhere but it is a fact that in America right now it would be impossible to be an "out" Atheist and win an election, worse still a "Muslim" - that is an example of the Majority imposing its will on the Minority. Also add to that the fact that all American politicians, loads of TV presenters and even the greenback refer to "God" all of this points to the fact that the downtrodden minority are having this bullshit imposed on them by the majority.

My point is very simple, you are arguing that America is not a "democracy" and that somehow or the other America's constitution stops the masses imposing its will on the few, that is blatantly not true. The simple fact that it is (almost) impossible to be elected into high office if you are an "out" Athiest, a Muslim or even just a few years ago an "out" homosexual because the uneducated masses wont vote for them because they believe in the wrong religion (or have none), or they have the wrong sexuality or not so long ago because they were the wrong colour - that is what happens and your statement says quite clearly that the Constitution is supposed to stop these things happening - it has not, it will not and it cannot stop the voters casting their votes on prejudiced grounds therefore putting someone into office who represents the prejudiced majority against the minority.

Quote:

Some, though, are probably quite sincere. Interestingly, Obama comes across as one of the more sincere.

Ironically this is probably because he knows it will win votes and brush aside the idiots "accusing" him of being a Muslim. I think that their is a pretty good chance that he is an Atheist - the first book that he wrote before he was running for president barely had any mention of "God" anywhere, the next one was full of that horrible word - probably because he would be unelectable in America unless he is Christian.

The Constitution is an expression of the authority of the people. Consider that unless the schism that was the Declaration of Independence is taken as legally enforceable, than the Constition is also not legally enforceable.

Use of the Constitution is limited to establishing a government of the People. Every right and authority not delegated to the government is retained by the People, including where it is considered necessary, the actions of the Declaration of Independence.

Any law must be measured up to the standard of forming a "more perfect union" which is an ongoing process, that may never reach completion. Where a law is for any purpose other than the maintenance of the Union and the furtherance of the will of the People it is necessarily legally unenforceable.

Now this is of course subject to perspective, as I am all but certain that the founding fathers neglected to consult the King's Counsel of the day as the the legality of their actions in the course of the Declaration of Independence. As history shows, the British government of the day considered the action anything but legally enforceable.

Laws are symptomatic of the will of the People, though it does not necessarily follow that they are representative of such a will. Consider that the will of the American People took them on a divergent course from the will of the British People. The laws of the day failed to represent the will of the American People leading in to the events that followed.

Arguably, had King George been more receptive to the concerns of his American Subjects, he would have retained sovereignty of the American colonies. The lessons learnt in America certainly had an effect on British Imperialism given that later colonies, Australia, for example, were granted a great deal more autonomy.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the putting the words In God We Trust on money does not constitute a law respecting an establishment of religion, nor does it prohibit the free exercise thereof.

The US Supreme Court have also by that very ruling allowed US Dollars to be produced with "Allah", "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Yahweh" instead of "God". So why does it say "God" instead of something else.? To be fair to the "minority" of people in America either "God" should be removed so as to not offend people of non-Christian religions, or some percentage of notes and coins should have the word "God" replaced with some of the examples above - anything would be hypocrisy.

Quote:

It's not perfect, but it is pretty good IMO, and I believe most Americans want to keep it.

So if it was put to a vote whether Americans would keep the constitution or rip it up, the majority would win and the minority would loose, so much for the constitution helping to level the playing field for the minority.

Quote:

Actually, the members of the local Republican and Democratic parties count the votes. Supposedly, they watch each other to make sure there is no fraud, but in heavily partisan districts fraud does happen because one party controls the process. This is what happened in Broward County FL in 2000 when the election board controlled by Democrats wanted to manually count only those precincts that were heavily Democratic (in the high-rise condos in Miami Beach), to the exclusion of other more balanced precincts, in order to discover more hanging chads and get more votes for Gore. The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Bush v Gore that a selective manual recount of only certain precincts or only certain counties would violate the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

The penalty is that you appear foolish and people take what you have to say less seriously. As for instance when you miss the point that the Supreme Court doesn't rule on desirability but on constitutionality. For instance, from the wikipedia article on the case :

"It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgment must prevail unless it imposes a severe and unjustified overall burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class." -- Justice Scalia

He is saying it is possible the costs outway the benefits, or maybe they don't. He'll let state legislatures decide, he seems to understand that it is not his job to decide if the laws are "good" just if they are constitutional. I think the state legislatures have decided incorrectly. I don't really have the patience to read a 65 page supreme court opinion. I don't think I would be so firm on something if I couldn't explain my reasons for it.

Personalty attacks and name calling are not appropriate and make you look less than civilized.

I have already explained my reasons why presenting a photo id is appropriate in several posts in this thread, just as it is for many other aspects life in the US and virtually every country in the world. And I also mentioned that I don't recall any time when I didn't have to present an appropriate id when voting. Further, I find the excuses for not having a photo id (drivers license or state issued id) to be similar to the reasons why many drivers don't have a valid drivers license--they are too lazy and/or irresponsible to get one.

If it weren't for the winner take all Electoral College system of choosing a president, and if we had direct election of the president based on total number of votes across the entire country, it would probably take 3-6 months to count and recount the votes, and fraud would be rampant. Because the margin of victory for a presidential candidate in a given state is usually at least 2% (for the the vast majority of states), and there is a winner take all system for that state's votes in the Electoral College, that is the main reason why more fraud doesn't happen. If each vote was counted equally across the entire country, then each state, county, and precinct would be motivated to conduct fraud to add the national vote total of their candidate (depending on which party controlled that state). Even 10 fraudulent votes per precinct across the entire US could add up to a significant number of votes.

Why doesn't the US do something about this? Well, when something simple is proposed like asking voters for a photo id to prevent fraud, there is massive resistance, so you can imagine the resistance to real anti-fraud voting reform.

Last edited by m0002a on Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

If it weren't for the winner take all Electoral College system of choosing a president, and if we had direct election of the president based on total number of votes across the entire country, it would probably take 3-6 months to count and recount the votes, and fraud would be rampant.

What kind of country do you live in.? 3-6 months to count votes, I am not asking a single person to do the counting, when there are more votes to count you get more vote counters. In the UK the vast majority of votes are counted, confirmed and re-counted if needed inside 24-hours, and they are NOT counted by the party faithful, and voting fraud is a very long way from being "rampant". Nothing in the above statement matches the truth or even common sense, please provide some evidence to explain yourself rather than doing what you usually do and simply dismiss any view that does not match your own especially if that view has evidence.

Quote:

Why doesn't the US do something about this? Well, when something simple is proposed like asking voters for a photo id to prevent fraud, there is massive resistance, so you can imagine the resistance to real anti-fraud voting reform.

I have not seen a shred of evidence (mainly because you have not provided any - probably because there isn't any) to suggest that voter fraud is an issue in America, I would strongly suggest that far more fraud is conducted by the party faithful (from both parties) than by individual voters, why else would you ask biased people to count the votes, to promote fraud is the only logical answer.?

Quote:

Specify how the pubs didn't play the race card back then in FA or just as they attempted recently in PA. It's the same way they played the fear card in 2004.

Address your own kind before pointing fingers at others, if you believe you have the higher morale and ethical ground <gag, cough, spit.>. Glass houses and all that.

Still waiting for that birth certificate.

One thing that would go a long way to clean up American politics would be for every accuser to have to provide the same evidence in response for their own accusations. This would get round the problems of Romney and his Tax, and Obama for his Birth Certificate, a bit of a "I will show you mine if you show me yours".

This would reduce hypocrisy and very rapidly destroy the most stupid accusations, and at the same time identify who pays the most tax, who gives the most to charity, do they own the charity that they give tax to... etc

What kind of country do you live in.? 3-6 months to count votes, I am not asking a single person to do the counting, when there are more votes to count you get more vote counters. In the UK the vast majority of votes are counted, confirmed and re-counted if needed inside 24-hours, and they are NOT counted by the party faithful, and voting fraud is a very long way from being "rampant". Nothing in the above statement matches the truth or even common sense, please provide some evidence to explain yourself rather than doing what you usually do and simply dismiss any view that does not match your own especially if that view has evidence.

I don't understand. Just because the party faithful don't count votes in the UK has nothing to do with whether or not that happens in the US.

In the US, voting commissions (typically at the county level) are elected or appointed by partisan elected officials, who are themselves the partisan party faithful, and they run the elections. The theory is that both political parties have some members on local election commissions and who are "poll watchers" to make sure polling is done fairly, but in areas where there is a heavy majority for one party, they have a disproportionate number of people on the election commissions (and at the polls) and that makes fraud more likely in those areas. It is precisely because of this situation that most fraud is very difficult to prove.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum